240. An assault is an unlawful attempt, coupled with a presentability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another.

In practice, "unlawful attempt" includes threats, so that if someone were to say "I have a gun, and I'll kill you" that could constitute assault. It would not matter if you really had a gun. The point was that painting threats are prosecuted as "hate crimes" rather than simple assault becasue of the religious, or ethnic nature of the crime. It would still be a crime regardless.

--------------"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

Now that we've got you reading the actual law, go for extra credit with a cite that demonstrates that a Catholic in good standing accepting the Host from a Priest, then leaving Mass without consuming it, has committed a crime, much less a "hate crime".

Note that PZM's "incitement to hate crime" didn't specify that NON-CATHOLICS accept communion. Plenty of catholics are reading his posts on the matter and agree with him, and some have offered to score for him.

After failing at this task, feel free to take up a less challenging one - a cite that supports your claim that a non-Catholic attending Mass and accepting Communion is a secular crime. More extra credit for evidence that it falls under Hate Crime statutes, federal or in PZM's state.

"a criminal offense committed against a person, property or society which is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender's bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin."

HT to Mark Vandewettering at TO.

--------------"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

"a criminal offense committed against a person, property or society which is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender's bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin."

HT to Mark Vandewettering at TO.

As an aside, I find it interesting that religion is the only item on that list that is not beyond one's own control.

--------------Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecatedI think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Yeah, that website's not exactly a mystery. Rather than quoting the FBI, though, I prefer the summary of the statute:

Quote

"a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person."

Note that a hate crime involves two parts:

1. a crime must have been committed

2. the motivation for that crime was due to religion etc

Acceptance of the Host and removal from the Church can not be a hate crime unless it is first a property crime.

The hate crime statute in itself does not turn non-criminal behavior into criminal behavior, though individual laws against certain hate crimes (cross burning, for instance), very well may.

You might have a shot at demonstrating that the Church was defrauded of a cracker worth a penny or so, civil fraud, but good luck with your criminal charges.

I'd love to see an criminal indictment - "failure to eat cracker" ... "forgot to think of all the starving children in China" ...

The reaction of believers to perceived "blasphemy" or "desecration" has long fascinated me.

Some believers feel compelled to defend the "honor" of their God and his prophets, sacred objects or places. But who could be less in need of defending than the almighty, omnisicient Creator of the universe? Is it reasonable to suppose that He is overly concerned about being dissed by a few members of one puny species on one planet on the outskirts of one galaxy out of hundreds of billions in a universe that is at least 156 billion light-years across?

And if He were offended by it, He could punish the offenders instantly in the most spectacular way. If a tornado of fire descended from the skies over Morris, Minnesota and incinerated PZ Myers for desecrating the Host, leaving a pile of smoldering ash, the event would make world headlines and the rate of blasphemy would drop dramatically. Why do believers think that their God needs "help" in curtailing blasphemy? A fiery tornado outdoes an email campaign every time.

Other believers might concede that their God is unharmed by blasphemy, but complain that they are personally offended by having their beliefs mocked. To them I would point out the following:

1. Some people think your beliefs (whatever they are) are ridiculous whether they say so or not. Get used to it. If you interpret silence as tacit agreement, you are mistaken.

2. People have every right to believe in magic crackers, that Rev. Moon is God, that Xenu was our galactic overlord, or that John Frum will return to the islands with lots of cargo. They don't have the right to compel the rest of us to regard these beliefs as anything but risible, or to force us to mute our disdain.

3. We all have beliefs that others mock, whether those beliefs are religious, political, scientific, philosophical, etc. I'm an atheist who accepts evolution, but that doesn't entitle me to suppress open criticism or even outright mockery of either position. Why should your religious beliefs be exempt from the same sort of criticism and scrutiny?

Last, some believers will complain that such open mockery interferes with their attempts to proselytize. But again, why suppose that your almighty God is incapable of out-arguing a few blasphemers? If He wants to get his message across, He can. If He does nothing about blasphemy, it's because He has chosen to do nothing. Why do you think you know better?

The irony of all of this is that the anti-blasphemers end up being blasphemers themselves by implying that their God is not powerful enough or smart enough to deal with the situation on His own.

--------------And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

The reaction of believers to perceived "blasphemy" or "desecration" has long fascinated me.<snip>Other believers might concede that their God is unharmed by blasphemy, but complain that they are personally offended by having their beliefs mocked. To them I would point out the following:

1. Some people think your beliefs (whatever they are) are ridiculous whether they say so or not. Get used to it. If you interpret silence as tacit agreement, you are mistaken.

2. People have every right to believe in magic crackers, that Rev. Moon is God, that Xenu was our galactic overlord, or that John Frum will return to the islands with lots of cargo. They don't have the right to compel the rest of us to regard these beliefs as anything but risible, or to force us to mute our disdain.

Does that distain allow you to disrupt a religious observance? Does that distain allow you to take church property?

Plus, I also wonder about the predictable reaction of believers- is it incitement to mess with their rituals?

Let's imagine that there is a child's birthday party in a public park- The family is deeply religious and they have their eyes closed in prayer. You are more wise than they are and so you dump the birthday cake on the ground.

You get arrested. It is as simple as that. If you get a good ass kicking resisting arrest, few courts would probably bother prosecuting the family members.

Edited by Dr.GH on July 12 2008,17:44

--------------"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

The reaction of believers to perceived "blasphemy" or "desecration" has long fascinated me.<snip>Other believers might concede that their God is unharmed by blasphemy, but complain that they are personally offended by having their beliefs mocked. To them I would point out the following:

1. Some people think your beliefs (whatever they are) are ridiculous whether they say so or not. Get used to it. If you interpret silence as tacit agreement, you are mistaken.

2. People have every right to believe in magic crackers, that Rev. Moon is God, that Xenu was our galactic overlord, or that John Frum will return to the islands with lots of cargo. They don't have the right to compel the rest of us to regard these beliefs as anything but risible, or to force us to mute our disdain.

Does that distain allow you to disrupt a religious observance? Does that distain allow you to take church property?

Plus, I also wonder about the predictable reaction of believers- is it incitement to mess with their rituals?

Let's imagine that there is a child's birthday party in a public park- The family is deeply religious and they have their eyes closed in prayer. You are more wise than they are and so you dump the birthday cake on the ground.

You get arrested. It is as simple as that. If you get a good ass kicking resisting arrest, few courts would probably bother prosecuting the family members.

Wooosh!

--------------"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

The reaction of believers to perceived "blasphemy" or "desecration" has long fascinated me.<snip>Other believers might concede that their God is unharmed by blasphemy, but complain that they are personally offended by having their beliefs mocked. To them I would point out the following:

1. Some people think your beliefs (whatever they are) are ridiculous whether they say so or not. Get used to it. If you interpret silence as tacit agreement, you are mistaken.

2. People have every right to believe in magic crackers, that Rev. Moon is God, that Xenu was our galactic overlord, or that John Frum will return to the islands with lots of cargo. They don't have the right to compel the rest of us to regard these beliefs as anything but risible, or to force us to mute our disdain.

Does that distain allow you to disrupt a religious observance? Does that distain allow you to take church property?

Plus, I also wonder about the predictable reaction of believers- is it incitement to mess with their rituals?

Let's imagine that there is a child's birthday party in a public park- The family is deeply religious and they have their eyes closed in prayer. You are more wise than they are and so you dump the birthday cake on the ground.

You get arrested. It is as simple as that. If you get a good ass kicking resisting arrest, few courts would probably bother prosecuting the family members.

How is accepting a cracker then sitting down disrupting a religious observance. In the original, the priest and other fanatics caused the disruption. The priest gave the wafer to the kid, it is not their property anymore. I'd like to see that one go to court.

I've never seen anyone react violently to something like that, so I doubt that fanatical attacks is considered predictable. Considering that most states have reasonable force laws or definitions for crimes, physically restraining someone for not eating a wafer does not seem to me to constitute, in any sense, reasonable force - since no force seems justified.

If the priest and others want to be offended, then so be it. That gives them no right for assault.

Your birthday party is a nice strawman, since that is not the same. Consider that the family gives you a piece of that cake, and you do not eat it, but instead decide to take it home.

Does the family have the right to stop you, to physically try to restrain you and force you to give back the cupcake, to demand for an apology, to ask for police protection for the cupcakes so they make sure that everyone eats theirs at the party?

Priorities. They need to get some.

--------------"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

Does that distain allow you to disrupt a religious observance? Does that distain allow you to take church property?

Plus, I also wonder about the predictable reaction of believers- is it incitement to mess with their rituals?

Let's imagine that there is a child's birthday party in a public park- The family is deeply religious and they have their eyes closed in prayer. You are more wise than they are and so you dump the birthday cake on the ground.

You get arrested. It is as simple as that. If you get a good ass kicking resisting arrest, few courts would probably bother prosecuting the family members.

Why do you keep using these really weak analogies? Dumping a kids birthday cake on the ground != walking away with a wafer from mass (that you have been given) != burning crosses != spraying swastikas on synagogues.

Firstly, regardless of the rights or wrongs of PZ's comments he hasn't actually done anything or incited anyone to do anything illegal.

Secondly, comparing PZ destroying (which he has yet to do btw, he's merely talked about it) a communion wafer to a KKK cross burning or the vandalising of a synagogue with Nazi symbols is hyperbolic drivel of the highest order. Those crimes are demonstrably of a racial, not religious, nature, a fact established in every civilised country on the planet. One of the key arguments in the "offence to religion"/race debates has always been that Jewish religion (for example) can almost exclusively be identified with a specific, and narrow, set of racial groups. The rights or wrongs of this categorisation are immaterial, at least in the UK these matters have fallen under racial discrimination laws, not (despite the best efforts of this misguided government) religious hatred laws.

Thirdly, communion wafers are a commercial product, they can be bought. PZ can perfectly legitimately get his hands on some. Even if someone snuck them out of a mass they have been freely given them by the priest, a reasonable transfer of ownership can be said to have taken place. No disclaimer signed, no contract entered into. To claim that the wafer would have to be stolen in order to acheive this "desecration" is to twist the definition of "stolen" so far that my wife could have me prosecuted for theft of her saliva after a prolonged kiss should she so desire. The sacrament is freely given to people professing that faith. Should that person miraculously change their mind 2 seconds after receiving it.....well how can you prove their lack of sincerity? Even demonstrable premeditation could fall foul of the protections that religious affiliations (and the ability to change them) have under the law.

Fourthly, blasphemy is only blasphemy to a believer, PZ isn't a believer. He can whack off on wafers, burn bibles, get a lady to queef on Qu'rans, tear up Torahs, grind his genitals on Guru Granth Sahibs and shit on sections of every sacred sheet in the world. Hell, I'll even join him. So what? Will this upset some people? Sure. Will it offend some people? Sure. Will it constitute blasphemy in the eyes of some people? Sure. But rather tellingly, such acts only have the significance they are attributed under various belief systems. They are tellingly very seperate from "Get to the back of the bus nigger" or "filthy kike" or "dirty paki" or cross burnings or Holocaust denial or "No Blacks, No Irish" signs, they don't involve discrimination against persons or people on the basis of an unchangeable facet of their birth, i.e. their race.

Threatening to kill someone is a crime. Threatening to kill someone because of their race or religion is a hate crime. Threatening to crumble a cracker in a (probably) comedy fashion, even if it pisses someone off, is not a crime (should said cracker be legally obtained). If it is then I get to play the exact same cards. I get to burn chuches because they "offend" me (they don't but hey, I can claim whatever beliefs I like right?), I get to call for the murder of the Archbishop of Canterbury because his beard "offends" me (it doesn't but hey, when did reality enter into the equation). I get to beat up muslim people on the street because their presence "offends" me (it doesn't, but hey, why let a little thing like the facts get in the way of a good emotive load of shit?).

Guess what? PZ's comments (and maybe actions) WILL offend someone, it's possible that causing offence is quite deliberately intended. Causing offence=/=hate. Not even close. PZ is drawing attention to a demonstrably ludicrous idea and questioning it. He might be doing so in a way that I would not, or that I might tacticly disagree with, but what he is expressedly not doing is anything remotely resembling a hate crime.

To equate the two is to cheapen a) hate crimes and the suffering their victims have been through, and b) to miss the point of what PZ has said.

I suggest people grow up a bit. Given a choice between having my kids beaten up for the colour of their skin or having their most precious holy relic desecrated I know which I'd choose. And I know which is a hate crime and which isn't. I suggest that we stop pandering to the hysterical persecution complexes of people that are afraid to be disagreed with.

Louis

Well said Louis.

Hear Hear!

Well said Louis - I knew there was a reason we keep you around!

Here's my take as a Born & Raised Catholic - Yep, still got that "indelible mark" (seriously - they tell you that!).

So, PZ buys the wafers, I understand @ $.99 a box, = @ $.01 each... He goes to a Catholic Mass, and when the priest gets done fooling around with the wine and the altar boy, the priest gets down to it and "consecrates the hosts"..

So how far does the "magic aura " extend?1 foot? 5 feet? the whole church? Whatever, it doesn't really matter - the correct answer is whatever we (or the church) decides is right.

My point is that PZ could get that priest to turn 1,000 wafers into ...wafers... and do whatever the hell he wants with them.

No crime. Nothing to see, run along home now.

Yeah, there are some offended Catholics, but it's not a crime against Catholics, it's only that somebody is making fun of their wierd beliefs. Sort of like some crazy people believing that bacteria flagella have outboard motors and are irreducibly complex. I know, sounds crazy, but I swear that some wierd professor in PA actually wrote a book about it!

Bottom line - religious people always think they have the theology and the truth and all the answers - and they didn't like PZ's answer.

I just don't see the crime.

edited to move

--------------Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

Well, I think that there is an interesting contrast between Mirecki and the assault and battery I think that is waiting for PZ; Mirecki used pejorative language- he called the Catholic pope "an old guy in a dress" and said in an email (as I recall) that teaching his class on creationism and ID would be "a big slap in the fat face of the fundies." About a month later he had been demoted from Department Chair, had some of his classes canceled, and gotten slapped around on a deserted road.

That was an outrage then as it is now.

PZ has encouraged others to take actions on his request that are merely intended to outrage still others. I think that call for actual physical action alters the entire situation.

Edited by Dr.GH on July 12 2008,18:11

--------------"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

Does that distain allow you to disrupt a religious observance? Does that distain allow you to take church property?

Plus, I also wonder about the predictable reaction of believers- is it incitement to mess with their rituals?

Let's imagine that there is a child's birthday party in a public park- The family is deeply religious and they have their eyes closed in prayer. You are more wise than they are and so you dump the birthday cake on the ground.

You get arrested. It is as simple as that. If you get a good ass kicking resisting arrest, few courts would probably bother prosecuting the family members.

Why do you keep using these really weak analogies? Dumping a kids birthday cake on the ground != walking away with a wafer from mass (that you have been given) != burning crosses != spraying swastikas on synagogues.

The kid's cake was cheap, and they shouldn't pray when it offends you. Right? It was a public park and they were being offensive to your tender emotions. They deserved it.

Edited by Dr.GH on July 12 2008,18:16

--------------"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

I just reviwed the page before submitting this and badger3k seems to have got in ahead of me. Damn you, badger.

--

Let's say there are two cakes. The cake dumped upon the ground could be shown, scientifically, to be contaminated by real life bacteria. You could take swabs and show a difference: Germ-laden cake .... nice cake --- not the same! You can't recommence proceedings with the contaminated cake. You can still feed the other, pristine, cake to your guests with a clear conscience, but if one guest gleefully devours the cake, while another "saves a piece for later", you don't get to demand the death of that person.

I just reviwed the page before submitting this and badger3k seems to have got in ahead of me. Damn you, badger.

--

Let's say there are two cakes. The cake dumped upon the ground could be shown, scientifically, to be contaminated by real life bacteria. You could take swabs and show a difference: Germ-laden cake .... nice cake --- not the same! You can't recommence proceedings with the contaminated cake. You can still feed the other, pristine, cake to your guests with a clear conscience, but if one guest gleefully devours the cake, while another "saves a piece for later", you don't get to demand the death of that person.

Badger's point is much clearer. I think the question goes to intent. What is the intent of the act.

There are some lame arguments offered that the cost of the cracker/Host is an issue. That is stupid, as I have stated and then tried to expose by analogy. The cost of the cracker, or the singed lawn, or some paint is irrelevant.

Then there was "the burnt cross" is an implied threat. We then looked at laws on threat and definitions of hate crimes. A threat is to claim you will cause harm to someone. In extortion cases, the threat is all that is needed. In assault cases a threat (in California) might be all that is needed. In California, there is some leeway in the law about how a threat is perceived, and what you can do about it.

I was once involved in a case where fellow A was in a fight with fellow B. Fellow A was stabbed with a knife several times by fellow B. Fellow B was arrested. Fellow B was found innocent because Fellow A had caused the fight by threatening fellow B. Fellow A was then arrested, and charges were dropped on 5th ammendment grounds (basicly there were no witnesses not used in the trial of B, including A, and no evidence in the trial of A could be used without self incrimination (IIRC).

Does the theft of a Host for the purpose of desecration cause emotional harm to others?

I would say it does, and that the act had no other purpose than to cause emotional suffering to others. Is emotional harm a legally recognized thing? You talk to any lawyer.

--------------"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

I rarely ever went to Atlanta- 3 times in 6 years. Too bad to, it seemed like a fairly nice place. Why did you make a such a silly assumption?

most folks who claim to "have lived in georgia" actually lived in atlanta.

care to share what part of the state you resided in?

i've lived on both coasts and a bit in the middle.

Augusta. I taught at the medical college there. I also taught at Paine College, a private school that is a "historic Black institution," and Augusta College, the local campus of the University of Georgia. I had an adjunct professorship at Georgia State University, but I never actually had to go there- they sent a few students to me.

--------------"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

Does that distain allow you to disrupt a religious observance? Does that distain allow you to take church property?

My comments above concern blasphemy and desecration in general, and not just the desecration of communion wafers. There are plenty of instances of blasphemy, such as the case of the Danish cartoonists, where property doesn't figure into the issue in the slightest.

Second, as others have already pointed out, to walk out of a Catholic church with an uneaten communion wafer hardly amounts to "disrupting a religious observance." Nor does the actual act of desecration. As for whether the former constitutes theft, I'll leave that to people who know more about the law than I do. Either way, it's clear that Catholics are not upset about the purported theft per se -- they wouldn't be this worked up over someone stealing a few paperclips from the bishop's office, after all. They're upset about the desecration that follows the "theft". If it were somehow possible for PZ to buy his own pre-consecrated wafers before desecrating them, Catholics would be just as upset at the desecration.

Quote

Let's imagine that there is a child's birthday party in a public park- The family is deeply religious and they have their eyes closed in prayer. You are more wise than they are and so you dump the birthday cake on the ground.

As others have already explained, that scenario bears absolutely no resemblance to the act of walking out of church with an uneaten communion wafer. To produce an equivalent disruption, you'd have to bust into Mass and dump the wine and wafers on the floor before storming back out.

--------------And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G